Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123771
X-Original-To: internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: internals@lists.php.net
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (php-smtp4.php.net [45.112.84.5])
by qa.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDEB81A009C
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 23:29:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=php.net; s=mail;
t=1719185443; bh=Yxdicoan4Gx0R5TqAWoQK/DE5GxTZNhGc288xBRU+ow=;
h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:To:Subject:From;
b=QDGxmfZGa84n/UeUkL5mn2FU3cfAY357Wyor1iUY/4KUA8BjXjqX5iLdNee5yky54
61KFgtWGYlM428VCwT1kURT6z5Lv3O+3cMoDYPf7lBFNScphc0kWN+y1j+NNzS9Zyd
XMT1T0RVm5L4BvGJgLWtaZ11/2Qq2n8dd6eFfpa0tCzm90inJ/ZWHkrM+XnJ2mFeCL
VvMzaA9/AXEEckP8EvkcnBTpkE1ydQK0SRlhBywpKXCcHCZCV+f/4/j/6cM2701Ilp
fQO1njBJ75JWbLGPFfJ73rOad0jO6Emq8OiDDHbcO0BqHhNcyVtiUFXXu9xhvyYBGx
9FB307yLGNjjQ==
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A1818067D
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 23:30:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on php-smtp4.php.net
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,DMARC_MISSING,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no
autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0
X-Spam-Virus: Error (Cannot connect to unix socket
'/var/run/clamav/clamd.ctl': connect: Connection refused)
X-Envelope-From: <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Received: from fhigh7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.158])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 23:30:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D38B1140202
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:29:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100])
by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:29:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
garfieldtech.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from
:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1719185366; x=
1719271766; bh=XDFAY0QxRi6uF5mdFbdo1PXGjaYsT0BSr6Exnbj3R+E=; b=l
VVa8ufBle4pNAGTmUiJUAZjpyfj3kcegNuh6l5pommmPeuNcFng9wwg1qsOCfF2X
oFOZjTpshPBqJ6J3NdL4HkHdR5euu2MZJxYF+7ekcNJjbXXC0c1mHa3pgA8xhrVf
eFbRZxeZyzbpBseNrf3QFo3BMz+HqwTvXBVP+hPbiUJERJtwVb19y8wp2F8VMuYV
dov7KtJderpQY94Ws350vkfwSqsxmVyeyycWCniso5XlSsUSnF95ZQW7dyUt6dEr
NH0lG6PhmmIXNcIEJ3lGSFzKmP850PPRdJF6l2pohqYp9/egFxS3HlUkFz1jdpP5
ibohrz29hUlkKvBkHGQ1Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date
:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to
:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to
:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=
fm2; t=1719185366; x=1719271766; bh=XDFAY0QxRi6uF5mdFbdo1PXGjaYs
T0BSr6Exnbj3R+E=; b=t/N42NnsmTBTch2+iKlyVGMYrsBuRq4IvxYE5nRCm0mm
12/pEal9ZrysDgE4wp72Z+YwmUfNLaSzPfDDMKtU7edJKIOEuqOXt1Sd6M8Lbrcn
DUwFy4R1eXz6LkLj/QP6xXoYp/UNsGp4fCsHVNEw8XO2h/frCSmKffngdjIFueFm
qMmYV4c5r/arKdcWmcpj+R1znX7hAi6DfYDjtoBg/JNNXXXomVjjd//OLKZXXc7N
1wUo9ZAo61i7FL8rWCxalD//9EydIG9dbdwhLlPkuVx4uRECHlq1bv/QiCQZjERc
nQJEIy7LDKsbpZ2jQq7H8YXTZspX1zTODjqYyFg2fg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:1a94Zp43QnsIbLKQJuqBXpNERkIGk_PKS6Vw2GDlE5o5PiP638flEg>
<xme:1a94Zm6-x4rXuCSbpn8nwC165DlE0hszWAFwwJWvWMrDDg-Hxzl3EO2w35Gt2Q7Nl
kPbwnKMtEEBIQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrfeegtddgvddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne
cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghr
rhihucfirghrfhhivghlugdfuceolhgrrhhrhiesghgrrhhfihgvlhguthgvtghhrdgtoh
hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevheehvdevjeelvdevgfelvefftdejkeelvdekgeeh
fffgiedvjefhhfeltdduteenucffohhmrghinhepphhhphdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvg
hrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihsehgrghrfhhi
vghlughtvggthhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:1a94ZgdB63QrMsCRd9TsY58TrEKxWnoYqoM1gpEYAeyD8kJAxIc50Q>
<xmx:1a94ZiJm7m3qTFA7scf8qVzFLVr1VkXGyZRtIbLQER_3bLvpaEzcFg>
<xmx:1a94ZtLM391RPhwAqyGM54qPMoGkQKEpQoWBt4ecE1Gx59d767uHtw>
<xmx:1a94Zrx9zfjlVDWzhqOB7MVcEz2J8_onDQPohf83jdpL2wZKeuhefQ>
<xmx:1q94ZgkRsDqnsWV7bXGggq3fEt1kiw8_93T--Wo2mCiq3sUV8p0uhnsd>
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 9E9551700093; Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-522-ga39cca1d5-fm-20240610.002-ga39cca1d
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:internals+help@lists.php.net
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:internals+unsubscribe@lists.php.net>
list-post: <mailto:internals@lists.php.net>
List-Id: internals.lists.php.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ef0c3617-6757-45a1-a485-3f7c197fd599@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
References: <eb3f59cc-3ed8-461a-a3a4-f6ba10ed31e1@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:29:02 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Static class
Content-Type: text/plain
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")
On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Bilge wrote:
> Hi Internals!
>
> I am pleased to present my first RFC: Static class
> <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class>.
>
> This work is based on the previous discussion thread on this list of the
> same name, and hopefully captured all the relevant details,
> notwithstanding anything unanticipated that may present itself during
> the implementation. Let me know if you feel anything important has been
> missed. I am aware it omits to mention specifics about messages so
> emitted when runtime or compile-time errors occur, but I anticipate this
> can be hashed out in the PR, unless consensus indicates otherwise.
>
> I am aware this idea is not supported by everyone, but there seemed to
> be enough positive voices for it to be worth a shot. I'd like to get a
> better idea of where people might stand when it comes down to a vote,
> now there is a formal RFC, so we know whether it's worth completing the
> implementation, although any sentiments so proffered are of course not a
> commitment to vote any particular way and nobody should feel compelled
> to speak to that unless comfortable. Looking forward to feedback!
>
> Cheers,
> Bilge
On the point of getting feedback on where people will vote now there's an RFC, I can only say with all honesty "Good luck." :-) This is by far the biggest challenge of making an RFC: the lack of a meaningful sense of how something will be received before the actual vote. Welcome to the club.
For the record, as previously stated, I will be voting No on this RFC.
--Larry Garfield